Anna Raccoon Archives

Post navigation

The Dame Janet Smith Review.

The Anna Raccoon Archives

by Anna Raccoon on February 25, 2016

The BBC was off to a cracking start this morning – commencing with the ceremonial hurling of the sacrificial spent carcass of yet another DJ from the top of BBC Towers to the waiting mob below – Tony Blackburn.

Although from early morning the BBC news continually trailed the expected interviews with the ‘legal advisors’ of the victims – by 9am I had given up waiting to see Ms Dux and co; Richard Scorer did appear on the ITV ‘This Morning’ sofas.

I turned over to BBC2 – to see Joanna Gosling standing in for Victoria Derbyshire interviewing yet another brave victim who had selflessly given up his anonymity – Kevin Cook. Kevin went to ‘Jim’llfixit’ as part of a large scout pack. He alleges Savile took him to his dressing room when he saw how disappointed he was that they didn’t get individual badges, rather than a large badge for the whole troop.

‘He took me to a small dressing room. I don’t think it was his because it was really shabby, a dingy little room.

‘He said “Do you want to earn your badge?” and he sat me on a chair in the middle of the room.

‘He put his hand on my knee and then tried to put his fingers up the bottom of my shorts before he unzipped them and touched me. Then he made me put my hand on top of his trousers.

‘There was a knock at the door and someone came in but said “Oops” and left. In hindsight, I think he [Savile] knew what he was doing and stood between me and the door so that no one would see what he was doing.’

Kevin now says that after telling his wife this story following the death of Savile, she phoned the police ‘within two or three minutes’; he also says he had an offer from the media for his story, payment for which he was determined to give to charity…eventually he declined ‘the’ offer and ‘went to the press himself’ (no mention of where payment ended up this time).

Something about talking to the press was ‘a release’ for him, he felt stronger, more confident, which obviously explains why, when he was snapped up for an interview with Victoria Derbyshire in January 2013, he was able to disclose further…and further…now it seems that Savile’s crime was laughing whilst this second man:

“walked into the room and carried on the abuse. He made me do stuff to him and he physically abused me as well, he hit me. How can you tell your mum and your dad that you were forced to give oral sex to somebody and then they physically hit you afterwards, and Jimmy Savile there laughing? “But I’m no longer scared now, and if the police find him I’m going to face him and I will get some justice.”

Kevin declined to name the second man this morning. Did he tell Dame Janet this fuller story in person? I do hope so, given that he now holds strong views on the dastardly nature of people who fail to give information that stops children being abused. It was a curious interview to run in the hour before Dame Janet’s report was published….

What did Kevin say to Dame Janet? Let us find out.

Dame Janet gives a very fair, and I suspect, utterly accurate, resume of Savile’s character. They range from family recollections of a ‘frugal’ man who could be tight with money but also supportive of family members in financial difficulty – to ‘a self-publicist’ who would ‘big himself up for publicity’. Male BBC employees tended towards the opinion that he was a ‘clown’, ‘an amusing fellow’ and had few ‘social graces’ – many women described him a ‘sleazy’, ‘creepy’ and disliked his ostentatious and socially awkward habit of kissing their arm from top to bottom – though Dame Janet cautions:

4.38 witnesses were being asked to remember him shortly after his exposure as a prolific sex offender. That is almost bound to have influenced their recollections and perceptions of him. Very few people were willing to admit that they had liked him. Some were prepared to speak warmly of his abilities as a presenter; some accepted that he had charisma. A few were prepared to say that they had enjoyed his company and found him amusing. There were, of course, quite a few who admired him for his charitable work.

One man, Kevin Howlett, who had met Savile twice, did describe him in derogatory terms as ‘eccentric’, ‘unusual’ and ‘creepy’. I look forward to hearing Mr Howlett’s description of Kenny Everett, or perhaps Dame Edna Everage…

Other disc jockeys appear more united in their dislike of Savile, regurgitating old stories of him being a ‘gangland enforcer’ and a man who had no ‘social contact’ with his colleagues. Professional jealousy or just resentment towards a man who didn’t stand his round in the general heavy champagne swilling lifestyle of 70s BBC?

Andy Kershaw in particular, describes an occasion when as a ‘new disc jockey’ – or put another way, when he could have been ‘anyone’ walking in off the street, he put out his hand to Savile and said ‘Hi, I’m Andy’ – 40 years later he remembers the ‘put-down’ when Savile failed to acknowledge him warmly. I daresay Andy is still smarting from the time when his sister ate the last of his Walnut Whip. Such delicate egos.

Despite his celebrity, many witnesses described Savile as a loner who avoided social contact save in situations over which he had complete control. He was not interested in getting to know the members of a production team. He rarely went to BBC parties and seldom went to the BBC Club.

One of the few people to whom Savile confided details of his past, had this to say:

Savile told Mr Langley that he had created himself; he had realised early on that he had nothing going for him, that he was not well educated and that he needed to create an “outrageous personality”. One can see that this might explain Savile’s image with his unconventional style of dress, strange hair colourings, use of ‘bling’ jewellery and stylised conversation which was frequently punctuated by sayings like “now then, now then, how’s about that then?”

I was particularly amused by the complaints that Savile spent little time in Television Centre, nor on the sets of various programmes; would request a supply of expensive cigars for his ‘six hours of presence’ and then leave the building at the earliest opportunity clutching his cigars. This was felt to be distasteful – not the cigars, but the fact that he gave the impression that he ‘really had fixed it for children’ and was a ‘bit of a con’, making them feel uncomfortable about ‘things in television that are not as they seem’. Crikey, I hope those particular innocents never have to work on Newsnight….

One statement in the report which is likely to be widely circulated is:

It may be no surprise that Savile himself thought that the age of consent was too high. Lesley Taylor, who worked on Speakeasy for a time, told me that, over dinner one evening in the BBC cafeteria, Savile expressed the view that the age should be lowered to about 12 to 14.

As ever, context is important – Dame Janet was discussing at 3.7, the fact that with the age of majority having just been lowered to 18 from 21 in the 1970s, there was wide ranging public debate as to whether the age of consent should be lowered too, on the grounds that ‘so many young people under the age of 16 were having sex; they were not only willing to do it but were not going to be stopped.’

First one to spot the media comment that ‘Savile wanted the age of consent lowered to 12’ – without further qualification – gets the prize…..

Dame Janet knocks on the head any notion that no one was aware of child sexual abuse before 2011, or that victims were ignored. She points out that:

“Tardieu in Paris in the 1860s wrote at length on rape, incest and anal interference of young children. Parliament passed the Incest Act in 1908 as a result of concern expressed about children during the 19th century and crimes of incest and sexual assaults upon children within the family have been a regular feature of the criminal lists at the Assizes and continue to be so at the Crown Courts throughout the Country”.

Whilst acknowledging that in the 70s the new phenomena of ‘hormone hysteria’ was leading many under age girls to seek out sex with celebrities, and that although senior BBC managers (from an older mindset) would have disapproved and put a stop to this, she didn’t find that junior members of staff who had grown up in this new ‘age’ would have thought it appropriate to report such activity. Interesting.

Esther Rantzen spoke warmly of the support given by the BBC to her work on Childwatch. She said:

“We took [child abuse] out from under the carpet”. She said that the BBC, through Will Wyatt, the Head of Department, and others gave steadfast support to the show. Within some parts of the BBC, however, there was some caution because of a concern (also expressed in the press) that, in publicising its very unpleasant message, the programme might cause children to invent stories.

Dame Esther told the review that she had gone through the ChildLine files and was satisfied that they had never received a call relating to abuse by a pop star or disc jockey. Blimey – not just ‘never received a call about Savile’ but not about any celebrity! (at 3.84 if you want to double check!)

Aha! I have finally found Kevin Cook:

Savile abused Kevin Cook in his dressing room after attending a recording of Jim’ll Fix It when he was nine.

That’s it, he’s just listed in the chronology, with no mention of his finding the confidence to tell Dame Janet the horrific tale he told on Victoria Derbyshire this morning of a vicious rape by a second man on BBC premises. Perhaps she should have filmed him, maybe the camera gives him confidence.

Sadly, Dame Janet doesn’t appear to have been able to answer the conundrum of how old Karin Ward was when it was claimed that Savile was a paedophile who had assaulted her on BBC premises….

Savile indecently assaulted Karin Ward in a dressing room/hospitality room at the BBC Theatrewhen she was 15 or 16.

Dame Janet has been more than fair and even handed in this report – it is more than just a review of the BBC; it will become an important social history document, forensically detailing the changing cultural habits of society.

She is to be congratulated.

She is aware herself of the danger of bias – that in only calling for witnesses who had ‘witnessed or experienced abuse’ she was carrying a loaded gun:

I was acutely conscious that our method of finding witnesses might well result in bias. There was a possibility of bias towards those who had a serious grievance against Savile or the BBC and against those who had something they wished to hide.

She was also aware of the inherently unfair nature of an inquiry into the activities of someone who could not defend themselves:

I have read in the media expressions of concern that it is quite unfair that Savile should be accused of sexual crimes and immoral behaviour at a time when he is no longer able to answer the allegations. Concern has been expressed that anyone who comes forward and makes an allegation of abuse against Savile is believed without there being any real investigation into the truth of the matter. There are some who believe that the allegations are driven by a wish to receive compensation. I acknowledge the views of those who feel that Savile is being condemned without proper investigation, especially when these views are expressed by those who knew Savile and who honestly believe that the allegations are untrue.

She was also suitably aware of the temptation for ‘bandwagon jumpers’ to approach her with tales of abuse for their own reasons:

There are a few cases where I have not accepted the evidence of a complainant or have felt unable to reach any conclusion. I have not included those cases in this Report. I am not saying that I have rejected their evidence because I have concluded they are dishonestly seeking compensation; just that their evidence was, for a variety of reasons, unsatisfactory.

Finally, she makes plain her views on the police (non) investigations and the ensuing media feeding frenzy:

The police have simply recorded the nature and circumstances of the various allegations and, as I understand it, have designated them as crimes for the purposes of their records. I do not for one moment criticise the police for collecting this information.

However, I do think that it is unfortunate that the impression has been given that every allegation was in fact true.

______________________________________________________

Footnote: A special mention for the Guardian, still trying this morning to defend Louis Theroux against claims that he must be a lousy documentary maker who failed to uncover Savile’s ‘crimes’…..

Louis Theroux became aware of a credible allegation that in the late 1960s or early 1970s Savile had sex with a 15-year-old. Theroux spoke to David Mortimer, an executive producer at the BBC.

I ran that one by Mr G, a fortuitously handy example of ‘ordinary member of the public’.

‘What d’you make of that’ I said.

‘Well, if he’d reported that to a senior producer and nothing was done, that’s disgusting’ said Mr G.

It would be a miracle if you didn’t speak to the producer you had worked with for 30 years…or pass on gossip over a glass of wine.

Still Louis and his housetrained camera has been sculling round anyone with a grudge against Savile for months now, desperately trying to pull together another documentary on ‘his friend’ Savile and salvage his reputation….

‘Although from early morning the BBC news continually trailed the expected interviews with the ‘legal advisors’ of the victims ‘

Quick update on that:

Victims’ solicitor calls report ‘an expensive whitewash’

Posted at 12:44

A lawyer who is representing 168 victims of Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall said they will feel let down by the Dame Janet Smith report and will see it as “an expensive whitewash”.

Liz Dux, from Slater and Gordon, said:

All the Savile and Hall victims have ever wanted from this report is truth and accountability. Despite millions having been spent on the inquiry, my clients will feel let down that the truth has still not been unearthed and many will feel it is nothing more than an expensive whitewash.

It is unfortunate that Dame Janet had no power to compel senior managers to give evidence, giving the impression that the whole picture of who knew what has not been revealed. With 117 witnesses giving evidence of concerns and rumours, it’s implausible to suggest that this did not reach the upper echelons of the BBC.

What’s apparent is that the senior managers only had to scratch at the very surface and a lot of Savile’s offending would have been revealed. There is real concern that the culture of fear and oppression referred to might have prevented more from speaking out more candidly and still exists today.

Dame Janet Smith answered that at her Press Conference by pointing out 180 witnesses said they were unaware of the type of incidents she was investigating she went on to say something like rumour is not evidence.

That single sentence rings true, in an account that otherwise would have been rejected as ‘fantasy’ by anyone with even a passing acquaintance of Child Social Work before , say, Cleveland. The fact that ‘Kev’ seems to ‘remember’ more and more details of progressively worse abuse speaks volumes and would have, again before Clevelandy times, alerted any case worker worth their salt.

I’d love to know which cub pack Kev was a member of and whether hsi local scout leader has been jailed for noncing (Surely a Scout badge?) ie if the abuse he originally described was at the hands of his scout master or such. Choir master and Scout leader being in the Top Ten Jobs For Homosexual Paedophiles since the time of the Castrati and Baden Powell thinking about strappy young boys in shorts full of British ‘Pluck’ (did BP have a lisp I wonder?) respectively. His original account of his abuse by The Man Who Groomed A Nation reads , to me very much like ‘projection’.

I was appalled by the decision taken by Exaro and a copy of my letter dated 22 January 2016 to Exaro is on the Review’s website. Exaro’s decision appears to have been taken for its own commercial gain without any thought for the interests of the many victims of Savile or the integrity of the reporting process. Its decision was entirely unjustified. In a self-serving and inaccurate press release, Exaro argued that, in publishing an out of date draft of my Report, they were breaking the “logjam”. However, there was no “logjam” to be broken; at the time of the publication by Exaro, the Review had announced publication within six weeks. Exaro also suggested that the reason why publication had been delayed, namely because of concerns on the part of the Metropolitan Police that the Report could prejudice its on-going investigations into sexual abuse was, for some reason, “bogus”. Exaro were wrong; that is precisely why publication was delayed. 1.66 Exaro also argued that the publication was justified because the draft of the Report disclosed by them was the Report on which the Letter of Criticism sent to the BBC had been based. However, once again, they were wrong. They obviously did not understand that it is standard practice when preparing reports of this nature to include in any draft steps that are still to be taken – in this case, sending a Letter of Criticism to the BBC. In fact, the draft of the Report on which the Letter of Criticism sent to the BBC was based was a draft prepared many months later. 1.67 A number of victims and witnesses were adversely affected by Exaro’s decision. In particular, we had taken great care to avoid identification of individuals where that was not necessary for the purposes of the Report, sometimes in consultation with those individuals. The draft disclosed by Exaro contained some early draft wording and descriptions prepared before those descriptions had been amended to bolster anonymity. Exaro’s selfish decision to publish led to individuals being identified.

Exaro have yet more egg on their face – in particular, the contents of Hencke’s beard could provide sustenance to several hungry asylum seekers while they wait for their claims to be dealt with – over their recent ‘revelation’ that “30 boxes” of evidence relating to Claire McAlpine’s death had been found: they stated that Smith had “been handed” a copy of the diary, but she had not.

The family have it, the police have a copy, but for some strange reason they (the family) neither permitted it to be released nor wished to co-operate with her ‘Savile investigation’, despite having previously accused Savile directly of involvement. (At least, that’s what their reported words in the press suggested).

God damn Bandini, I feel so angry. All the media column inches, all the lives destroyed, all the reputations impugned – and I have just found Dame Janet’s conclusion on the original lurid Duncroft accusations.

As a result, my conclusions in relation to Duncroft are limited. I have concluded that, while at the BBC, Savile did touch C55 on the breast and did touch C37 on the breast and that he had an erection while she was sitting on his knee. Although she did not mention this incident in her television interviews, I do accept that Savile had an erection while Ms Ward was sitting on his knee and that he put his hand down the waistband of her skirt. But apart from that, I feel that the fact that I was not able to see some potentially important witnesses makes it impossible for me to reach any further conclusions.

Even if you graciously accept, as Dame Janet has done, that two girls had their breasts touched, over their clothing, and that Savile had an erection (is this a crime?) it doesn’t begin to add up to the story that Meirion Jones was prepared to wreck the BBC for……

I always found erections to be uncontrollable & often involuntary, prone to pop up without being beckoned – a little more effort may be needed as one grows older, or so I have heard!

One witness who came across well – according to DJS – was the girl who introduced Savile to Duncroft: “I have no reason to doubt her evidence that, while she was at Duncroft, Savile behaved impeccably in her presence.”

I can’t find any reference to yourself, Anna. Where is that criticism that Hencke was blabbing about?!?

Just on the point about only witnesses ‘for the prosecution’ being called, Smith made the point in the Q&A section of the press conference (in a reply to Lucy Manning) that although 117 witnesses HAD ‘heard rumours or stories’, 180 witnesses – “rather more than the 117” – had NOT. She also pointed out that rumours fly around about “many other people” but that rumours are… well, just rumours.

“Miss [Leisha] Brookes said her abuse at the BBC ended at 11 when her family’s cameraman friend was arrested on suspicion of abusing another girl. A policewoman picked her up from school and asked what had happened but she was too scared to admit she had been abused.

From the DJS Review… “[Douglas] Sillitoe worked at the BBC as a scene painter. He was a keen photographer and an arrangement was made between the two men [Phillips her stepfather] that Sillitoe would take photographs of Ms Brookes.

When she was about 11, the police came to her school wanting to speak to her. She now understands that Sillitoe had been found in bed with another young girl and a complaint had been made. Ms Brookes believes that the police had found indecent photographs of her at Sillitoe’s house. However, Ms Brookes’s parents told her that she must not say anything to the police.

When she was about 19, she left home and went to live in Liverpool. She began to attend therapy sessions and, after a while, her counsellor persuaded her to go to the police. She cannot now remember the name of her counsellor. She made a long statement to Merseyside Police in which, she says, she recounted everything that had happened to her, naming her adoptive father, Sillitoe and describing what had occurred at the BBC. She says that she named Savile.”

Seems quite a fair report but I do wish they would stop treating every allegation as fact. I guess that won’t ever happen it’s too late now, Jimmy Savilr will forever be convicted without trial. I couldn’t stand the man myself but this is just not fair. Incidentally my friends disabled brother attended a Jim will fix it show and had no complaints at all. There was much joking from the family that he should claim he was abused!

The Daily Mail has got him raping a little boy while “still dressed as a womble”. At that point I gave up reading in despair. Didn’t the costumes do up at the back? Did he have a special hole cut so he could go “wombling free”?

Not just any Womble, either – Orinoco. And not just a boy but a girl, too. At the same time.

To be fair to The Mail, they are reporting allegations about which DJS says: “I accept their accounts as true.” I recommend a full read of this – pages 319 to 325. The allegations are very serious, but in order for DJS to accept them as being true she must overcome several inconsistencies/improbabilities:

– the state of undress of the children (C9, boy of 10 & C46, girl of 12) and Savile himself during the attack varies greatly. – the nature of the attack (they are both penetrated in one account, in the other only one is). – the unlikely idea of a boy of 10 appearing in the audience of TOTP (“… I found it initially improbable… [but] …I think the floor staff on duty would probably not have noticed the presence of C9 and C46…”). – the bizarre fact that although the date/recording could be precisely identified, C9 has a memory of one of the bands performing which he could not have witnessed, as it was actually pre-recorded two-weeks previously. – C46 was, in DJS’ view, “mistaken” in her description of how “it was like a concert, with bands on the stage and when each band finished the curtain came down.”

There are other interesting points, and we at least know where a part of that £6.5 million went as C46 was living in an unidentified country where “video meeting facilities are not available” and a senior member of the Review team “travelled out to meet her” to hear her story. (Fortunately, a video link WAS available in the case of C9, who also lives abroad). Parts of the accounts are very convincing – how they gained entrance, for example, although how they managed the reunion with their guardians after being abused is less so; I certainly wouldn’t place these allegations in the same basket as the ‘he touched my bum!’ rubbish, but the killer paragraph for this old cynic is the following:

“In April 2014, C46 saw an advertisement in a UK paper, placed by a firm of solicitors, inviting victims of Savile to come forward for advice. She contacted them and it transpired that C9 had instructed the same firm. Their cases were linked together. She was interviewed by the Savile investigation in July 2014.”

Nevertheless, DJS is convinced:

“In the circumstances, notwithstanding the existence of some obvious mistakes in their evidence, I think they, in effect, corroborate each other and I accept their accounts as true.”

He went a Wombling with two 15 year old girls on what was obviously the same show, but was interrupted first by a knock on the door & then later when a radio presenter barged into the room where he’d secreted his victims… and proceeded to record an interview with Savile (and the gals got to say “hello” into the mic). When that was over, it was straight back to the studio floor & they melted into the ‘participating audience’. Savile forgot about them & seemed more interested in a girl in pink on the podium (which you can watch on YouTube!).

Savile arranges for two kids to be given entrance, and has one of his entourage take care of them while the spectacle of TOTP takes place. During that spectacle, he cops off with a couple of 15-year-olds and leads them to a room. The interruptions prevent much from happening – that and the recorded radio-interview – but, back on the studio floor, the girls think he’s taken an interest in ANOTHER girl. Nevertheless, after what must have been only about 10-minutes the show is over – and that ‘entourage member’ is now leading those two original kids to Savile’s dressing-room. Were they his ‘back-up’ victims, ‘just in case’? Savile the chess-master, thinking several moves ahead…

The only possible reason to give the slightest credence to this combined account of the C’s is the way their accounts dovetail in a few areas.

Dame J should have asked for RIPA to be used to look at the e-mails of the two for the last several years. I suspect that might be of some interest. Indeed all Saville accusers should be have that done as a matter of routine. And then cross checked with all known accusers as well as Inet forums, meeting places, FaceAche etc. The dross of local councils have used same to snoop on parents trying to get their kids in a better school– so for once a bad Act can be used in a better cause. That of objective Truth.

“In total, Savile sexually assaulted 57 females and 15 boys. Three incidents of rape and attempted rape took place on BBC premises, Smith said, and the youngest victim to whom Smith spoke was eight years old at the time of the offence.

The review found that Savile would “gratify himself whenever the opportunity arose” and in “virtually every one of the BBC premises at which he worked”, which included BBC Television Theatre, Television Centre, Broadcasting House, Egton House, Lime Grove studios and studios in Leeds, Manchester and Glasgow.

Certainly voracious, Owen – he managed to abuse four children (I don’t think the girl in pink has made an allegation or it would be 5) including at least one rape (it was claimed there had been two) during the recording of a single episode of TOTP. (See above)

Talking of shooting foxes, have you heard from Hencke? He seems to have ‘banned’ me again and isn’t publishing my comments asking him to point us to the non-existent criticism of Anna Raccoon in the Dame’s Review, nor explain how his “well placed source” managed to get it so wrong over Claire McAlpine’s diary which he claimed – wrongly – had been handed to her. He’s probably busy with Blackburn’s lawyers after accusing him of rape…

Bandini, you appear either not to have noticed Smith’s conclusions or, perhaps as likely, not to be particularly interested in them. Try reading Smith’s Conclusions 2 and 3 (on pages 1 and 2 of the main text, pages 12 and 13 of the .pdf file) out loud to the patrons of one of your Tenerife Anglo bars and then see how readily convinced they are by your challenges to Smith’s findings.

Yeah, but would they temper their view if they knew that the report also said:

– that in respect of rumours and evidence of misbehaviour surrounding JS, half (about 180 or so?) of the people who gave evidence said that they had heard somethings, but that almost all of it was second hand, that what had been seen generally didn’t amount to, or prove, illegal conduct; and that the other half had said that they had heard nothing at all, her going on to say that some of those latter individuals might well have been expected to

– that NONE of the 72 witnesses who had come forward to allege improper behaviour, in particular those who were minors, had reported this to parents or law enforcement agencies

– that the stories in the press as to what the Beeb ‘knew’; were basically bunkum

and otherwise,

– that the Beeb tonight served up as some sort of indication that this JS person was a wrong ‘un, assuming I have not confounded two different people – I shall be happy to be corrected if in error – someone about whom she concluded that their account provided to the Savile investigation contained so many inaccuracies that no reliance can be placed upon their claims made on the Exposure programme or on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme about a purported incident involving JS

If you then couple all that with Dame Esther apparently being on record as saying that Childline had NEVER had any calls about JS, or any other BBC celebrity – somebody please correct that if it’s materially incorrect – do you think that those folk in the ‘Tenerife Anglo Bars’ might not be entitled to have some niggling doubt that something might be wrong in their having absolute unwavering acceptance, or certainty, with regard to the totality of the overall picture being given?

Maybe I should have left out the rhetorical question at the end. I’m not interested in what you believe, really.

I’m merely pointing out that your hypothetical ‘Tenerife Anglo Bar’ Propper Upper might have a bit less certainty about ‘her’ conclusions based on the totality of the evidence in ‘her’ report, if they read all ‘her’ writings, and also tried to align those in a sensible manner with other contemporaneous information. And I should have made clear that that is in spite of the dubious veracity of some witnesses reportedly denying almost any knowledge of anything.

A bit like pointing out that anyone who could believe the content of some of the NHS reports, without entertaining any serious doubts as to how the authenticity of some of the incidents included in those could be accepted without much challenge, or included in a way that was opposed to witnesses’ wishes, or even, on a least one occasion I noted, flatly stated the opposite of what had been said by a witness, such people might well have both limited analytical skills and/or practical experience of how such reports are produced

I’m not claiming expert analytical skills or quasi-judicial expertise for myself or anyone else, Ho Hum, simply saying that what we now know about Savile is enough for you to let us judge whether your niggling uncertainties will ever amount to reasonable doubt.

Besides which, the most important point is that none of this “evidence” has been properly tested. It has not been subjected to hostile challenge, which is an absolute basic necessity. A judge’s personal opinion is not even vaguely adequate.

Owen, I’m going to refer to the Womble incident mentioned above to highlight why the conclusions of DJS are, for myself, ‘opinions’ and not statements of fact (although some may be true, others may not).

The incredibly long gestation period of the Review – coupled with the case of C9 and C46 – allows us to make some observations about what OTHER conclusions might have been arrived at. C9 was interviewed long before C46 made contact with the Review (through the same P.I. firm representing C9). His allegation was of a double rape, of both himself and an (at that time) unknown girl.

The allegation had a number of curious inconsistencies, some of which I’ve covered above. DJS accepts that she had concerns about his evidence, but when C46 came forward much later these concerns were allayed (or ‘pushed to one side’, depending on your personal view).

Imagine for a minute that the Review had been completed earlier – prior to C46 making contact – let’s say in March of 2014. What conclusion would she have reached? She would have had two main choices:

Option 1: two children were raped. Option 2: the incident did not take place.

I would guess that the second option would have been more likely (I’ll return to this later) but as C46 came forward DJS was able to ‘believe’ in PART of the allegation of C9, and disregard discrepancies: the second child did not claim to have been raped, but by ‘linking’ & combining the two complainants, she arrived at her conclusion –

Option 3: one child was raped, one was not (although she WAS, in the opinion of DJS, assaulted).

Any of the above three options could reasonably have been chosen as ‘the conclusion’ – dependent on WHEN the conclusion was made. If either 1 or 2 had been published, would you have as much certainty in THAT conclusion as you apparently have in the conclusion NOW presented to us? I think so, as you seem to think that the opinion of DJS is the ‘true version’ of what happened (in the early 1970s). It may well be. Or it may well be wrong.

And why do I think that Option 2 would have been chosen in March 2014? Well, principally because of the impossibility of the complainant, C9, having witnessed PART of what he claimed to recall – the live performance of a band with which did not take place. However, I’m not now raising this to to ‘knock’ the allegation – instead I’d like to suggest that this raises some interesting insights into how memory works. Let us imagine that the conclusion of DJS is, indeed, the correct one & see what this means:

– both complainants had confabulated REAL events in which they took part – their abuse – with IMAGINED (curtains coming down after each group finished their song – like in a theatre – in the case of C46) or VIEWED events in which they were passive participants (watching TOTP on the telly, seeing a song performed, and incorporating this memory seamlessly into the allegation). For the complainants, these events took place; the truth is, they did not, at least not as described.

It highlights how necessary corroboration is, particularly when dealing with such long-ago memories, and shows how even WITH that corroboration any conclusion one can reasonably reach can only ever be an opinion, not a factual ‘record of what took place’. The trust we can place in those conclusions is reduced considerably by two things: the accused was never given a chance to defend himself against the charges, and the evidence was never rigorously tested as it ought to be.

Bandini, Janet Smith believed that notwithstanding the existence of some obvious mistakes in their evidence despite the discrepancies between what C9 and C46 remembered they in effect corroborated one another and she accepted their accounts as true. So the truth is that as far as she was concerned the evidence of C9 and C46 was trustworthy as far as their accounts of what happened to them were concerned. She did not find that the discrepancies which could be attributed to the young age of the victims and the passage of time outweighed the truth of their description of the traumatic experiences they underwent.

Those experiences may not have taken place in every detail as remembered, but Janet Smith accepted that the evidence of these two testifiers corroborated the essential truth of the acts that traumatised them as children. In any situation where there is no factual record, the truth of what happened is a matter of judgment. Janet Smith”s judgment seems to me rather better founded than yours. You are an armchair expert who for whatever reason has appointed himself as Savile’s posthumous advocate. That may explain why you seem determined to deny the witnesses’ reasonable accounts and refuse to accept a fair and reasoned judgment.

Actually, speaking of non-debates naturally brought that shady internet ‘news’ agency Exaro to mind, what with their strange gatherings. Would you be so kind as to nudge the following fact in their direction? Hencke has unfortunately put a red line through any input of mine, so…

As you will be aware, they have pushed the idea that the delay in publishing the Review due to the Met’s ongoing investigations was a smokescreen, nay, a downright fabrication. Herr Flick asked his well-balanced & totally sane followers the following, for example:

“Anyone spotted in the Smith review ANY case that would have been prejudiced by publication since May 2015? Looks like a bogus excuse to me.” [February 26th 2016]

This was despite DJS stating [2nd October 2015] that:

“Publication of the Review’s Report remains delayed solely as a result of the Metropolitan Police’s concerns that publication of the Report could prejudice its ongoing investigations into sexual abuse. There is no other reason for the delay.”

The answer to Flick’s swivel-eyed question is that Ted Beston was under investigation, questioned under caution in November 2015, and that the Met didn’t finish with him – and let’s hope they HAVE finished persecuting him – until December 2015. He, of course, features in the Review.

Owen, it’s really not the best idea to begin reading a massive tome by starting with the conclusions someone else has arrived at.

I’m sure I’ll get around to it in time, but as detailed above (in the case of Orinoco) the FACTS are far more revealing. It is interesting, for example, that the case of the two 15-year-olds appears in the review before that of the 10 & 12-year-old, when chronology dictates that the younger children met Savile first. The review doesn’t even seem to mention that the two separate incidents (involving a total of 4/5 children) took place during a single recording of TOTP. Details like these interest me as they may have a bearing on the confidence I’m able to place in those conclusions.

It is not unreasonable to feel unease at a case where C9’s allegations are causing DJS some concern, but another allegation is then later made by C46 (coincidentally to the same P.I. company handling C9’s claim for compensation for the very same alleged incident) which, despite its own discrepancies, came to support C9’s case, and C9’s therefore supported C46’s. And should I point out that C46 saw the ad for that P.I. compensation company in a UK-newspaper, despite living far from civilisation – or would that be over-egging it? Details, details…

Anyway, as has already been highlighted by the landlady above, DJS states:

“I acknowledge the views of those who feel that Savile is being condemned without proper investigation, especially when these views are expressed by those who knew Savile and who honestly believe that the allegations are untrue.”

Only had time to read the one allegation so far Owen–the one mentioned above. It is full of very dodgy stuff. And as I say above it should NEVER have been accepted as “true” without checking the emails/phone calls of the supposed “victims” to ensure their tales were not concocted together.

I will study this report over the next few days/weeks.

If it is as big a pile of crap as the expensive hospital based tripe such as the Leeds and Stoke Mandeville cockrot so-called reports it may yet serve as the death-knell for “believers” like you.

If that is true Ian then all claims that similar tales = truth are utterly invalid and discredited. If supposed “victims” have lawdogs marketing each others tales around and there is NO objective correlation at all–then all such stories must be dismissed as unacceptable as any sort of “evidence”.

Page 12 is nothing but a brief summation of what she says are her conclusions. They are no more damning that the quality of the tales she listened to. It will have to be gone through on a tale by tale basis.

Did I just hear Tony Hall say, on being interviewed by Lucy Manning about Tony Blackburn that:

“I would point you to the paragraphs in her report where she says that his solicitors said that you should believe the documents you have in front of you rather than what my client has said”

That’s what my recording of the interview states. What DJS report says, insofar as I can track this one down, is:

‘Later, through his solicitor, A7 accepted that I might well prefer the documentary evidence to his recollection on these issues. I do prefer that evidence and think that A7 was interviewed and denied the allegation. There was no other investigation.’

Is that what he might have been referring to – those really don’t quite sound just quite the same, in word or meaning – or is there something else I’ve missed?

I assume that is what Hall was referring to, but “should” and “might well” are certainly very different in meaning. I imagine Blackburn’s lawyers will be paying close attention! And that’s enough for me for one day… zzz…

If the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about firing Blackburn really was that he refused to go quietly after being offered a backdoor deal to leave and come back, it’s shocking that Hall failed to disclose this if he knew it. If he didn’t know it, the apparatchiks who stitched him up by letting him go on national TV and spout a half-truth have surely committed more of a sacking offence than Blackburn did by having recollections of events 45 years which differ from what the judge chose to believe.

Owen, if you’re about this is for you (and apologies to everyone else):

Our recent heated-debate on Hencke’s site may have left you slightly out of the picture, as he has previously ‘snipped’ parts of my comments & not published others. On the subject of Tony Blackburn he is being particularly disingenuous – playing a game of smoke & mirrors in an attempt to cover his sorry arse.

You will have seen his lies catalogued: over the DJS criticism of Anna Raccoon (which never took place) & the diary of Claire McAlpine being handed to DJS (similarly, something that did not occur).

You will have seen his pitiful dissembling: pathetically trying to suggest that I had accused Meirion Jones of hiding his AUNT’s involvement with Duncroft (when the evidence in black & white shows this to be false, as it was his FATHER’s hidden association clearly under discussion) & that I had once thought Jimmy Savile had raped McAlpine rather than Blackburn (when I never believed ANYONE raped her).

You will have seen his astonishingly poor grasp of the law: sweating profusely over his libel of Blackburn he claimed that consensual sex with anyone under 16 is ‘rape’ (when this only applies to those aged 12 & under) & how, realising his woeful mistake, he then sought to suggest that a future possible change in the law that MAY be brought about AFTER the current ‘ongoing consultation’ MIGHT somehow retrospectively mean that he was justified in accusing Blackburn at an earlier date (so breathtakingly weak as an argument I wonder if he’s not attempting to ‘do’ an Earnest Saunders to escape his responsibilities).

And I’d like you to know – as he seemingly would prefer that you didn’t – that the sequence of events was as follows:

– seeing that he had baselessly libelled Blackburn (via his article on Exaro) I advised him to immediately contact Watts and have the piece amended/withdrawn. – showing his usual stubborn-headed refusal to do so I informed him that I would be bringing it to the attention of Blackburn’s representatives (which I did). – when Blackburn’s name was then made more widely known he clumsily tried to suggest that no one could have known Blackburn was the subject of his article. (And wasn’t his description of the little tricks the journo pulls – with the aid of his libel-lawyer advisor – a master-class in the general sliminess of the ‘art’ of scribbling for a living?) – I pointed out that people DID know, and that it would have been impossible for me to have informed Blackburn’s representatives that their client was being libelled if this was not the case. (Basic horse-before-the-cart logic which even an Exaro-grade nutter should be able to understand, I would have hoped.)

I can’t recommend anyone else make the effort to wade through all of the above, but if you still believe you are dealing with an honourable journalist I think you should seek medical attention.

Last word on this: an email from the award-winning journalist informs me that I “crossed a red-line” in seeking to inform his readers of the ‘sequence of events’ above (i.e. to tell the truth). I guess I’ll just have to learn to live with this damning indictment…